In cooperation with various government regulatory agencies, HP has announced an expansion of its June 2016 worldwide voluntary safety recall and replacement program for certain notebook batteries. Additional batteries are affected.

1) ThisquestionmaynotmakesensebecausethequestionmayneedtobeaskedforthecompanieswhichmayhavemadeRAMupgradesfortheHP, ZE1115, Pavilionnotebookcomputer. ButaretheredatasheetsavailablefortheHP, OEMpartidentificationsF2298AorF2298-69001?2) OntheInternettherearenumerousWebsiteswhichcansuggestRAMforacomputermanufacturerandmodelnumberusingcomputerprogramswhicharesometimescalledmemoryconfigurators. PerhapssomeofthemcouldbetriedinhopesthatparticularRAMmanufacturersandtheirpartidentificationsarecontainedintheresultsofusingsuchmemoryconfigurators. [FortheHP, ZE1110, PavilionnotebookcomputersomeWebsitesreportthatitcanaccommodateamaximumof1,000orsoMBofRAM; othersreportamaximumof512MBforit. ForthereasonsIdiscussedabove, Ithinkthatapproximately1,000MBor1GigaByte (GB) ofRAMislikelytobethecorrect, maximum, accommodatableRAMformycomputer.] 3) I heard of at least one company in the Philippines which can sell old computer parts.4) Online I found a price for the OEM RAM which may be considerably more expensive than the RAM sold by one or more companies (Perhaps the cheaper RAM might sometimes not be OEM RAM.). That should be a workable, but more expensive way to solve this problem. Still I don't know which companies manufactured such OEM RAM for HP. I suppose by buying such OEM RAM and looking at the company name and part identification on the purchased RAM, one could learn the data that way. But, if possible, I would like to know those data before requesting the replacement RAM.

I am going back a bit here but I owned a laptop in that series quite a while ago. It was a Sam's Club Special the Pavilion xf145, also with an AMD processor and Via chipset with S3 graphics. Mine came with 512 memory from the factory, which was a big deal back then. It was my issues with that laptop that got me started in this forum years ago. It ran very hot and would hang up until HP issued a new BIOS after several months. I also recall there were issues with people trying to upgrade to 1 gig of RAM. I don't think they were having success. I never tried to do that, sticking with 512 until I sold the laptop about a year after I got it. I also recall it was very finicky about the memory it would accept. Sorry to not recall a lot of details but make sure you use memory modules that are configured like the factory modules, i.e. that have chips on one side or both sides. When a computer only sees part of the installed memory, it is because of a density issue most likely. I also would encourage you to buy from crucial.com. I have never had a compatibility issue with their memory.

Thanks, Huffer, for kindly taking some time to post some things from your experience here. Can you tell me why you think having integrated circuits on one or both sides of the RAM module just like the factory-supplied RAM module would be important? There might be something for me to learn here.

The most important, practical part of the challenge I faced was finding not-too-expensive, 512-MegaByte (MB), Random Access Memory (RAM) modules that would work properly in my Hewlett Packard (HP), ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer; learning the manufacturers and part identifications of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), 512-MB RAM modules usable in HP, ZE1110 and ZE1115, Pavilion notebook computers and how to match the RAM to a computer could be interesting and educational and otherwise might have helped me find a solution. In at least that practical part of the challenge very gratefully my dilemma fortunately had a good solution! On the same day I posted the starting portion of this thread I read on the RAM seller's Web site that one should, in effect, remove dust from the electrical contacts of the RAM modules and make good electrical contact between the RAM modules and the computer. So I blew across both RAM modules' contacts on probably both sides of each RAM module. I inserted them into the computer, first one, 512-MB module into one RAM-module slot, leaving the other slot empty. I also removed and reinstalled my notebook computer's nearly "dead" computer battery, something I forgot to do in an earlier, failed RAM test, but something I doubt could be important, since my computer battery was practically dead. Nearly the correct amount of RAM was reported installed by Windows XP Home Edition. Next I similarly added the second, 512-MB RAM module in the second RAM-module slot. This time very gratefully Windows XP reported 0.98 gigabytes of RAM installed!

Like you thought, in the first failed attempt to install those recently received, two, 512-MB RAM modules I at first thought there was what you called a density problem, or that the RAM modules had the wrong data capacities per "chip," or megabits per "chip" as I used "chip" in my earlier posting compared to integrated circuits on the motherboard that deal with the RAM modules (That is one "package" or "integrated circuit" may contain multiple units of circuitry, each here called a "chip."). But this is my new hypothesis: I suspect that the electrical connections between the contacts and my computer were good for one of the two, 512-MB RAM modules and not good for the other of the two, 512-MB RAM modules, leading to Windows XP reporting only about half of the physically installed RAM in my first failed attempt to test my newly received, 512-MB RAM modules. Then in the second attempt I suppose I may have had good electrical contact between the contacts of both RAM modules and my computer, leading to my computer reporting 0.98 gigabytes of installed RAM, or close to the physically installed 1.024 gigabytes of RAM.

Those 512-MB RAM modules which were used successfully in my HP, ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer were made by Samsung Corporation, sold associated with the part identification 494ms-162 by the company Memorystock.com (http://www.memorystock.com/ on the Internet), and probably each has the Samsung part identification M464S6453EV0-L7A with the other specifications "Sync," 133 MHz (MegaHertz), CL3, and PC133S-333-542. The integrated circuits on those successfully used, 512-MB RAM modules are labeled as K4S560832E-VL75, Samsung, 622, 260735XN. I think that last "X" is an "X" instead of an "H" because the width of the capital letter is somewhat narrower at the horizontal crossbar of it than at the top and bottom of that capital letter. Contrary to what I earlier wrote, fortunately and very gratefully it now does not appear that I will have to return the newly acquired Samsung RAM modules back to the seller of them.---These RAM modules, purchased from Memorystock.com, very gratefully work properly in my HP, ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer and for a price that was lower than I found at some of the other Web sites for RAM recommended for my computer!

Thanks, Huffer, for kindly taking some time to post some things from your experience here. Can you tell me why you think having integrated circuits on one or both sides of the RAM module just like the factory-supplied RAM module would be important? There might be something for me to learn here.

The most important, practical part of the challenge I faced was finding not-too-expensive, 512-MegaByte (MB), Random Access Memory (RAM) modules that would work properly in my Hewlett Packard (HP), ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer; learning the manufacturers and part identifications of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), 512-MB RAM modules usable in HP, ZE1110 and ZE1115, Pavilion notebook computers and how to match the RAM to a computer could be interesting and educational and otherwise might have helped me find a solution. In at least that practical part of the challenge very gratefully my dilemma fortunately had a good solution! On the same day I posted the starting portion of this thread I read on the RAM seller's Web site that one should, in effect, remove dust from the electrical contacts of the RAM modules and make good electrical contact between the RAM modules and the computer. So I blew across both RAM modules' contacts on probably both sides of each RAM module. I inserted them into the computer, first one, 512-MB module into one RAM-module slot, leaving the other slot empty. I also removed and reinstalled my notebook computer's nearly "dead" computer battery, something I forgot to do in an earlier, failed RAM test, but something I doubt could be important, since my computer battery was practically dead. Nearly the correct amount of RAM was reported installed by Windows XP Home Edition. Next I similarly added the second, 512-MB RAM module in the second RAM-module slot. This time very gratefully Windows XP reported 0.98 gigabytes of RAM installed!

Like you thought, in the first failed attempt to install those recently received, two, 512-MB RAM modules I at first thought there was what you called a density problem, or that the RAM modules had the wrong data capacities per "chip," or megabits per "chip" as I used "chip" in my earlier posting compared to integrated circuits on the motherboard that deal with the RAM modules (That is one "package" or "integrated circuit" may contain multiple units of circuitry, each here called a "chip."). But this is my new hypothesis: I suspect that the electrical connections between the contacts and my computer were good for one of the two, 512-MB RAM modules and not good for the other of the two, 512-MB RAM modules, leading to Windows XP reporting only about half of the physically installed RAM in my first failed attempt to test my newly received, 512-MB RAM modules. Then in the second attempt I suppose I may have had good electrical contact between the contacts of both RAM modules and my computer, leading to my computer reporting 0.98 gigabytes of installed RAM, or close to the physically installed 1.024 gigabytes of RAM.

Those 512-MB RAM modules which were used successfully in my HP, ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer were made by Samsung Corporation, sold associated with the part identification 494ms-162 by the company Memorystock.com (http://www.memorystock.com/ on the Internet), and probably each has the Samsung part identification M464S6453EV0-L7A with the other specifications "Sync," 133 MHz (MegaHertz), CL3, and PC133S-333-542. The integrated circuits on those successfully used, 512-MB RAM modules are labeled as K4S560832E-VL75, Samsung, 622, 260735XN. I think that last "X" is an "X" instead of an "H" because the width of the capital letter is somewhat narrower at the horizontal crossbar of it than at the top and bottom of that capital letter. Contrary to what I earlier wrote, fortunately and very gratefully it now does not appear that I will have to return the newly acquired Samsung RAM modules back to the seller of them.---As I explained above in more detail on the size in bytes of the RAM reported by Windows XP Home Edition, these RAM modules, purchased from Memorystock.com, very gratefully work pretty well in my HP, ZE1110, Pavilion notebook computer and for a price that was lower than I found at some of the other Web sites for RAM recommended for my computer!